halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Why was the multiple article simularity rule abolished?
Now I'm not sure whether it was actually called that rule but at the moment i'm finding loads of articles, which are the same in title and general idea but all have a different view and prospect of the actual subject. This is freaking me out and i think we need to bring the rule back because it doesn't really show organisation of articles very well! Supreme Councillor Parkster Holo-Com I've been insisting that they should bring the rule back too, it makes things way too confusing with articles with the same titles, and it doesn't makes any sense either. Admins, please! I'll worship the ground you walk on, if you just bring the rule back! PLEEEAAASSSSE!!!(I was exaggerating there, but please admins, bring the rule back!) Cheers, 10:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC) No, its not coming back, for a very important reason. Its severly limiting the fanon possible. when i joined there was already a spartan-013, a near neglected mess of an article compared to the awesomeness of mine. If this rule was to come back into action i would have to change my spartan code number, effectively ruining it. (He is, after all, numbered 013, relating to his terrible luck. In fact, it makes it difficult to then make any number of Spartans. Two of my main characters would have to be deleted. This then goes on to other things, like ship names, ship classification, vehicles, Spartan programms, the events of a character post Halo. Basically, it severly hampers what is possible for a member. If this rule is reinstated, a portion of my articles would be deleted because of it and a significant portion of my future articles that i have planned would no longer be possible. I imagine its the same for just about everyone. --Ajax 013 11:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Also you don't seem to be very aware of what the rule actually entailed. It prevented two articles from being the same name, so no two articles about Spartan-013, no two articles about a known Spartan, with each one showing that authors take on the character and expanded universe fanon, no two Spartan programms. Also 'its not very well organized' is void. If you search Spartan-013 you will be taken here, where a number of links go to SPARTAN-013 (Ajax 013), SPARTAN-013 (Spartan-013), Spartan-013 (Trevor-013) and SPARTAN-013 (Dragonclaws). A well organized link to four entirely different fanon spartans using the same code. --Ajax 013 11:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC) On a further note, what would you do Parkster if when you joined and there was already the Covenant Neutralists? Or what would you do Matt is SPARTAN-039T existed before you joined? Both of you would of been unable to write those articles, or would have to change the names/rearrange them. If it were you two with articles stuck in contradiction, i think your complaints would be quite the opposite. And don't say 'oh i would just change the name' because nobody likes having to do that to an article and your just lying to yourself. --Ajax 013 11:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC) I agree with Ajax i was forced to change my spartan to 110 when it was supposed to be spartan 115, but i had to change the name to 110 because of annalitive repentance, and i almost had to change 16807 Rampant Gear, but then i said screw it i am not changing it. Eaite'Oodat 12:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Ok, Ajax, you have convinced me that the rule is a good thing. But I still think that everyone should try to find another name for an article first; then, if it's not possible in any way; THEN, you can have the same name. But you're right: there are some who absoloutely doesn't want to have another name (you included) no matter what. Cheers, 13:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC) I see what you guys are saying and i agree that it would ruin my plans if there was already a Covee Neutralists but i think that it needs to be reinstated but if there are many different articles of the same name; then the best one should stay and the rest renamed or deleted. So in your case (as you said yours was the best SPARTAN-013) your version would be kept. The public will vote on a forum on which one they think is the best and then the best will be kept. I think if what i just stated works, then people might start making origonal articles and if they have an article, which is already been made, then this may make them produce an even better aticle than they would do if the rule wasn't in place. So not only will it stop the confusing multiple articles but it will make people produce better articles in the voting of elimination. --Supreme Councillor Parkster Holo-Com 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry Parkster, it just won't work. Getting rid of it was a good thing, not bad. -- But it makes the site untidy and not very good for new commers, who want to base their article(s) on that certain subject. I'm going to speak to the admins and see what they think. Supreme Councillor Parkster Holo-Com 19:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Sigh I have to say that I go with keeping the rule. In the previous arguments posted in this forum, good points are brought up, however, I have things to say. #I had researched whether my monitor number had been taken before-hand, and when I discovered 343 guilty sparks and Spartan G-23's Installation-07, we resolved the problem with a triple property share. #Actually, it does not much limit article creation. We on this site have so far only used about half the Spartan number codes available. Mostly there are just copies. When making my SPARTAN, I easily found the number -067, and used it. Furthermore, we are not just limited to SPARTAN-IIs; there are also SPARTAN-IIIs available. It's not hard to find your own number; if you just check before making your article, it'll be fine. As for Monitor numbers, I've already created several monitors not belonging to Halo installations; there are only 7 Halos and all are taken, but the Halo Fanon universe is open to expansion. So far, there are a number of other Forerunner installations that have been created, each with its own Monitor or AI. #I also slightly agree with having the better article more prominent, should there be copies. I have other points, but I think I may have forgotten them... so for now, this is it. --''"Enlighten the path of others-darkness lights its own way"'' Monitor of Installation-07CommunicationsContributions So what are we goong to do? Supreme Councillor Parkster Holo-Com 12:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Parkster, what if someone came to Halo Fanon and made a better article named Covenant Neutralists than you? Under your ideas, yours would be renamed or deleted. Your hard work has gone to nothing. Also, you seem to think that every article that has the same name seems to have the same content for some reason. Go look at all the Spartan-013s. No two similarities. And also Parkster, i am a admin. And we are pretty adamant about keeping this gone. Also, annihil, on the note of Spartan numbers and monitor numbers, for one, people may come to this site already wanting to make a article on a halo installation and be pretty down heartened when they get here and find they can't make one. As for numbers, i know, from personal experience, people usually pick numbers relating to something personal or the character. My evidence is again, SPARTAN-013, his number reflecting his status with luck. Now this rule, was stupid and never liked, by the majority admins or members for the very obvious reason that it can severly hamper new comers and old timers alike in making artciles. If this rule was still enforced, my 'future' fanon i'm planning wouldn't be able to exist, as with my current current fanon series. Ultimatly, i'm sure some of your articles wouldn't be able to exist, and i think it is the same for everyone. --Ajax 013 13:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Ajax, I actually think you uses the rule's abolishment a little too much. You should try to make some fanon on your own. But as it seems now, you seem to think that "because the rule is gone, I can make something with whatever name I d**n please". An example of this is that you have made an additional SPARTAN-IV Program, and there already was three articles about it. Additionally, you only added a few sentences to it. What kind of article is that? Unless you're going to add more info on the page, it's just a waste of space. The rule was abolished to help people that accidently got the same names on their articles, not to allow people to do a hundred more SPARTAN-IV Programs, or fifty more SPARTAN-013s! At least try to make something original, Ajax, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it. Cheers, --Matt-256 14:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Well for one, not everyone has mythic amounts of time to expend onto their fanon. I have to balance my time as much as possible. And another point is, got a better name for the fourth generation of SPARTAN super soldiers? --Ajax 013 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC) As for the name, no, I can't figure out a better name. About your time, I understand if you have little time to do your fanon. What I said was that you should add info on the page, when you have time. Also, my actual point was that everyone must at least try to do something original, but if it's not possible, then it's ok to use the same name. Also, I'm not against the abolishment of the rule anymore, and I have nothing against articles with the same names, as long as there are differences between the articles, and as long as it's a resonable number. For exapmle, it's acceptable to make another article with the same name if there is only one or two others with the same. However, if there are four or five with the same name before you plan to make such an article, it's a little exaggerated to make another one. Finally, I didn't blaim you for anything, I just used your articles as an example. Thanks, Matt-256 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Before Ajax, you stated that some of my articles probably wouldn't exist if the rule were still in place. Actually, no. All of my article names are indeed original, as I take the time to check before I make my pages. If only everybody simply had the time to do that, we wouldn't have to be arguing and most likely, the rule would still remain resolute. I'd been viewing the Halo Fanon site long before I got my account, and even in making the account, I actually checked. As for numbering codes, they don't always have to do with the character's personality; that is, I think, only for yours and a select few others. People wanting to make something on a Halo Installation would be disheartened at first, sure, but why have a Halo when you can make a Forerunner complex that does nearly the same thing, or a different function that's 'cooler'? I currently co-own Installation-07, and I own both The Archive and The Assembly. Beside that, I also own the Forerunner AI in control of the Arctic IV Forerunner Installation. There are too many choices Ajax; if people checked before they made things, and if they didn't keep copying popular concepts, we wouldn't need to have abolished the rule, that in my opinion, this site needs. Another point is Roleplays; what if two people who had alternate articles were both in the same RP? You simply can't have two SPARTAN-013s with different names and backgrounds running around in the same story; it just doesn't make sense. The rule helped keep things more ordered, and it also deterred article copies. There was a previous forum on Article Copies somewhere in the index that I started. Go check it; you'll see that quite a few people agreed with my ideas. --''"Enlighten the path of others-darkness lights its own way"'' Monitor of Installation-07CommunicationsContributions But if we brought the rule back then somebody wouldn't be able to create another Covenant Neutralists because one is already created, regardless of boths content, and therefore make new commers less confused with which one they should, if they want to, base their own articles on. Also i had a good idea for the battle of installation 03 before i came but when i looked it had already been taken and so i thought oh well i'll do something else. By the way, which of my articles are based on multiple simularity articles, because as far as i am concerned the whole aspect of a neutral empire hasn't been created before i came? The Parkster"I'm all ears" 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) When I first arrived, I had three ideas: Team Alpha, Nogard, and the Alternator Rifle. The first two were original and the third was an idea borrowed from Star Wars. Since then, I've created very few articles that are borrowed from something else, and none of them are a duplicate article (I'm not counting my MJOLNIR and Precursor articles). But, while in some cases the demolision of the rule was good, in other places it was bad. Personally, this is my belief of what should have been done. We should have created the Duplicate Article Request Form, where someone could request to have a duplicate article made. -- I suppose that's the closest idea to mine so i think that it would be good if we went with that, however i think that there should be a rule the if someone has already made something then you cannot make another article of the same name and different content or same content and different name. This way it will be impossible for multiple articles to be made from now on but as for the existing articles it looks as if it would be sensible to keep them. The Parkster"I'm all ears" 16:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC) To annihilative. My fanon was already up to chapter five before i found out about Halo Fanon, making life difficult when i went to upload it and my characters. Also, Annihilative, not everyone wants to co write a article on something, or rename something so they can do it. People want to be able to have their own original takes on things, like i have my own distinct and different ideas on SPARTAN-IVs and MJOLNIR armour to other people, eventually, i may extend to doing ring installations. I'm also co writing a unique take on the Precursors with RR. However, i'd like to say, theres nothing on the whole site, quite like any of my articles. No geordie ODST sarges, no sociopathic SPARTANS with bad luck, no abusive irish Spartans, no fore runner grave worlds, no forerunenr grave robbers versus human-elite alliance exist outside of my articles. --Ajax 013 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)